Happy Atheist Forum

General => Media => Topic started by: Asmodean on July 17, 2017, 01:56:30 PM

Title: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 17, 2017, 01:56:30 PM
Quote from: TankIf you watch SyFi then both Killjoys and Dark Matter have strong female leads and other strong female characters.

Female leads are more common than they used to be. But it should all be about the character

That. Thing is, it seems like in some films and series, female leads are cast because feminism. Those have an unfortunate tendency to end up having a certain whiff of a dude with boobs about them.

Ok, I guess that requires a bit of clarification... I despise doing long comments on Facebook, by the way.

What I mean is, subjectively to me, it feels like the female lead is sometimes cast to fill a role originally intended for a man, or worse, a role was created to satisfy some bullshit feminist agenda rather than to best benefit the storytelling. Actually, speaking of Killjoys, while I'm a bit of a fan of Dutch and Co, the show does have a certain odor of "Hey! Girls can be tough too!" about it, to which I say "Fuck your agenda," but... The concept is cool, so they are excused.

When it comes to female leads specifically, on the upper end of the scale, we have shows like Bones, where I think the lead is absolutely excellent, judged by one criterion - can I picture someone else filling that role after watching the show for a season or two and doing as well or better? In case of Bones, absolutely not. And then on the polar opposite end of the scale you have abominations like the remake of Ghostbusters...

Fuck it, I'm taking it to the forums.

Netflix is actually pretty much crawling with silver-screen-feminist crap (and for the purpose of this conversation, I do apply "silver screen" as a label to series as well as films, in case that's unclear) as a large number of featured shows, especially of the brand new variety, seem to compete in order to "out-egalitarianise" each other. Some do succeed to a certain degree, most do not.

Now, do let us start zeroing in on the meet of my problem with this trend of forced feminization of leads in films and series and such.

I don't need characters I like or relate to to be similar to me, be it in sex, age, color or even species. Thus, in my tribe of one, those characteristics are a non-issue. Being believable (in their respective worlds) and/or relatable, however, those are the things I do look for. For example, I thought much-praised Dexter was a shitty-ass show, mostly because of the main character utterly failing to convince me of his mental issues being real. He was a male like me, white like me and roughly my age-ish. All irrelevant facts when faced with my issue with the damned thing. On the other hand, Hugh Laurie made perfect sense as House in the world of that show. Again, a male like me, white like me... A good few years older, but again, those facts are utterly irrelevant to why I thought his performance was good.

Making art, which I consider most entertainment media to be, to one degree or another, is like... Making art. Unless it happens organically, so to speak, I'm just not interested. So yes, if you want to speak to the Tumblr feminists and SJWs and their fellow cultists... Why not. Force "marginalized groups" forward in the most obvious ways you can find. If you want to make a statement to people like me though... Fucking do better.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Dave on July 17, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
Female leading characters are very common in e-published sci-fi and fantasy literature. Not much to do with feminism, more to do with male fantasy, female authors tend to be more nuanced. 

Some stories are actually strong and inventive plot-lines with strong, not-strongly-sexualised female leads. Some have dominant-but-non-sexual-female leads. Some are merely teenage wet dream stuff. Most are written by men.

Sci-fi tends to be the least sexualised, fantasy the most.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 17, 2017, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on July 17, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
Not much to do with feminism, more to do with male fantasy,
Certainly to the fantasy part. However, one does can look at many of the characters at the masturbatory aid end of the spectrum from a "and by the way, she's a GIRL! You got a problem with that? Huh? HUH?!" angle.

Quotefemale authors tend to be more nuanced.
Eh. There is a fair bit of two-dimensionality there as well.

Quote
Sci-fi tends to be the least sexualised, fantasy the most.
Tell me about it! I've been on vacation and managed to suffer through a season of Shannara Chronicles or some such. That is a good example of masturbatory aid show for both sexes and major sexual orientations. Actually, the guy... Whatshisname... The elf-kid, he did a fair enough job, but the two main female characters... Either utterly talentless, or disinterested in what they are doing. In any case, that thing churned out more cheese per episode than Italy does in a year. Avoid unless teenager.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Arturo on July 17, 2017, 03:34:26 PM
I never watched the show in the OP but I don't see the problem with "women can be strong too" and why a "fuck you" to that agenda is an appropriate response. I don't really care how they are portrayed because it's not real anyways. Even the news is dramatized for bringing in viewers.

It's all art to me and art has no limits. What matters to me is that I'm entertained. And it's up to the artists and creators to do that. If I'm looking for stuff to throw poop at, I'm not going to be entertained.

When you look at the success of YouTube and the people who create content there, you never would have guess someone who just yells and plays video games alone, by himself would be making money that way. Let alone millions of dollars like some.

What entertains someone may not entertain me. But that's okay because I can go be entertained with something else.

So it's okay for me if they put feminism in movies. I'm open to new experiences. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. I'm not special and neither are they. We all end up the same way when the universe ends.

I don't know how accurate these tests were but they tested people from different races and showed them pictures of different skin color doing and wearing the same thing. They all noted that people with darker skin seemed more dangerous and people with lighter skin seemed more trustworthy. Subjective experiment sure, but do we really know why that happens? Is it a product of the media? I know many people who would say they don't feel that way, but how do we know it's not subconscious?

Sure everyone wants to believe the subconscious story until it challenges their beliefs. People can have two beliefs at once. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps that is really the problem with today's world. They want to believe the thing that gives them the most comfort. But once a someone or something comes around to say it's okay to believe the other thing, they do. And the coralling begins.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 17, 2017, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: Arturo on July 17, 2017, 03:34:26 PM
I never watched the show in the OP but I don't see the problem with "women can be strong too" and why a "fuck you" to that agenda is an appropriate response. I don't really care how they are portrayed because it's not real anyways. Even the news is dramatized for bringing in viewers.
Ah! Thank you for raising that point. I hoped someone would. It is highly subjective, so I do would like some input from the forum on this.

What's the problem with women being "strong too?" It's simple. People can be weak or strong or anything in-between. Same for the bravery/cowardice gradient. Same for a whole bunch of... Let's call them psychological (as opposed to physical) traits for the purpose of this discussion. Note that I said "people," not "men" or "women." In my use of that word lies your answer.

I consider my response appropriate because when you tell me a good story, the moral of it, if there even is one, should be mine to derive. Banners and buzzwords and slogans, be they verbal or visual, or a combination thereof, are obvious and lazy tools, albeit good for protests and rallies. Art, however, is only art when it's open to be completely misinterpreted with regard to its creator's intent by the observer. Note that I said "Fuck your agenda" rather than "fuck you for having an agenda" or even "fuck you for pushing [it]" Broadly speaking, what it means is "fuck you for not letting me the viewer decide what the agenda is"

You see, I want to understand the universes of music, literature, motion picture based fiction and what have you my way. If I want "earthly facts," I'll put on something with Sir David Attenborough, thank you very much.

QuoteIt's all art to me and art has no limits. What matters to me is that I'm entertained. And it's up to the artists and creators to do that. If I'm looking for stuff to throw poop at, I'm not going to be entertained.
Well... I do not view every product of human imagination as art. Granted, I do not define it as narrowly as something which has to have no meaning outside itself, but... Yeah.

QuoteWhen you look at the success of YouTube and the people who create content there, you never would have guess someone who just yells and plays video games alone, by himself would be making money that way. Let alone millions of dollars like some.
Ok... You wouldn't think Johnny Depp would be making as much as he does either, and yet he does. Just one example of many. Financial success does not equal artistic worthiness. For starters, the first can be measured with a reasonable degree of objectivity. The latter... Less so, and quite often by using the former as one of the variables.

To put it this way, the fact that a painter sells paintings does not mean that they are not absolute, uninspired shit. For instance, it can mean that a few such paintings resonated with a few select individuals (refer to the above point) and later sales were little but products of the name.

QuoteWhat entertains someone may not entertain me. But that's okay because I can go be entertained with something else.
Yep.

QuoteSo it's okay for me if they put feminism in movies. I'm open to new experiences. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. I'm not special and neither are they. We all end up the same way when the universe ends.
Again, I refer you to the above comments and, to my original post. It's not feminism in movies I have a problem with.

QuoteI don't know how accurate these tests were but they tested people from different races and showed them pictures of different skin color doing and wearing the same thing. They all noted that people with darker skin seemed more dangerous and people with lighter skin seemed more trustworthy. Subjective experiment sure, but do we really know why that happens? Is it a product of the media? I know many people who would say they don't feel that way, but how do we know it's not subconscious?
Hm... This is interesting. I am speculating right out of my ass here, but I assume that may have something to do with the perceived likelihood of being wronged by, say, a Hispanic guy in a tuxedo rather than a white guy in sweat pants and polo shirt.

Yes, I think media plays a major part in this, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that that is always unfounded. Generally, I dislike tribalism based on physical attributes, but if I have my (admittedly old, also European) statistics straight, a white person is more likely to be killed by another white person. A black person is more likely to be killed by a black person. The chances of being killed by somebody in the first place, by the way, are pretty-much fuck-all.

QuoteSure everyone wants to believe the subconscious story until it challenges their beliefs. People can have two beliefs at once. It's called cognitive dissonance.
Well, yes. However, based on no data beyond personal sensibilities, I don't think it's a substantial issue.

QuotePerhaps that is really the problem with today's world. They want to believe the thing that gives them the most comfort. But once a someone or something comes around to say it's okay to believe the other thing, they do. And the coralling begins.
Mmh... I don't think bias, tribalism, gullibility and such are a problem with today's world. The biases are getting more narrow and the tribes are getting more specialized, but they were always there. Personally, I think it's more important to recognize them in oneself and work with and around them than recognize them in others, or actively try to suppress them (especially in others) because Kumbaya.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Dave on July 17, 2017, 05:03:15 PM
I rarely get involved with this sort of argument. My main philosophy is that people are as strong, determined, intelligent, able . . . as people are - gender has little to do with it unless that person chooses to adopt a specific gender role. If a woman wants to develop muscles for work or sport, or even fighting in an army, good on them, that is valid. If they want to be muscular to be seen as some kind of spectacle, that's OK as well, but gets no Brownie points from me. It's a kind of make-up, shallow and artificial.

I tend to ask once if a woman wants a hand doing something, if they say, "No, thanks" I accept that and let them get on with it. If they are struggling I might ask again if we get on together, but never three times unless there is danger. Trouble is some women say, "No" when they mean, "Yes" here as well!

These days I am happy to have the assistance of a fit woman if I am struggling with some task - that's both intellectually and physically fit . . .

The best person to do any job is the best person to do that job.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 17, 2017, 05:09:29 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on July 17, 2017, 05:03:15 PM
The best person to do any job is the best person to do that job.
Amen.

And to turn some metaphorical tables, there is no shame in it being a white, heterosexual male from a "good upper middle class family" - nor a person with a completely different background.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Dave on July 17, 2017, 05:29:39 PM
Now that we have a female Dr Who the universe is open for female-kind.

Bet she can twiddle a sonic screwdriver just as well as any bloke!
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Arturo on July 17, 2017, 11:28:45 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on July 17, 2017, 05:29:39 PM
Now that we have a female Dr Who the universe is open for female-kind.

Bet she can twiddle a sonic screwdriver just as well as any bloke!

Bahahaha
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I might start worrying if/when women have more roles than men. But even then I'll be fine for a while. Women comprise about 29% of the main character and about 30% of the speaking characters.

What I don't get, is why a bunch of men are having any problem at all when women start even just approaching an equal status. Like, what is the issue?

I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 07:04:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)
It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 18, 2017, 07:10:40 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 07:04:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)
It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.
I could agree with that. But I haven't seen it. Is there an example of a movie where the horn of feminism ideology is being blown in my ear?
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 07:10:40 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 07:04:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)
It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.
I could agree with that. But I haven't seen it. Is there an example of a movie where the horn of feminism ideology is being blown in my ear?
Most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head is from a comic book, actually. But the issue is the same in that sphere.
This is Thor (Thor vol. 4, #1 (Oct. 2014):
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3437920/thor3.0.png)

Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Dave on July 18, 2017, 07:29:46 PM
^

QuoteThey went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.

Ah, in an ideal world that would be unnecessary...

The first Alien movie was a great vehicle for Sigourney Weaver but Alien 2?
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 18, 2017, 07:38:22 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 07:10:40 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 07:04:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)
It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.
I could agree with that. But I haven't seen it. Is there an example of a movie where the horn of feminism ideology is being blown in my ear?
Most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head is from a comic book, actually. But the issue is the same in that sphere.
This is Thor (Thor vol. 4, #1 (Oct. 2014):
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3437920/thor3.0.png)
I don't see it. How is that feminism being blown in my ear?

Quote from: Guardian85Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.
A few things. In the movie itself, what was so "feminist" about it?

I'm so sure about the statement, "where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist." I remember all sorts of anti-women rants and I remember the makers talking about that. I remember thousands of comments saying something like, "I'm not watching it because it's an all female cast." that happened before the movie was even filmed, let alone edited, or even released. Is that valid criticism? Can you blame them for not wanting to take a dive through a pile of 99% anti-women shit to find the "valid" criticism to which to specifically address?

I don't remember them promoting the movie as a feminist movie (though there certainly were some individuals that did so). Does saying that the cast is all women somehow make it feminist marketing?

Again, most of the stuff is anti-women, misogynistic, and pro-male shit, that there being some for women doesn't seem like an issue. And the feminism stuff isn't even anti-men, it's for gender equality.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 08:03:47 PM

Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 07:20:09 PM

Quote from: Guardian85Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.
A few things. In the movie itself, what was so "feminist" about it?

I'm so sure about the statement, "where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist." I remember all sorts of anti-women rants and I remember the makers talking about that. I remember thousands of comments saying something like, "I'm not watching it because it's an all female cast." that happened before the movie was even filmed, let alone edited, or even released. Is that valid criticism? Can you blame them for not wanting to take a dive through a pile of 99% anti-women shit to find the "valid" criticism to which to specifically address?

Again, most of the stuff is anti-women, misogynistic, and pro-male shit, that there being some for women doesn't seem like an issue. And the feminism stuff isn't even anti-men, it's for gender equality.
I remember thousands of commenters seeing the trailer and saying "I'm not paying to watch this, it looks awful". (And the ghosts in the movie did look like something out of Eddie Murphy's Haunted House")
I also remember Sony and Paul Feige coming right out and saying they were making a feminist movie.
People were lumped into the "misogynist hater" category all over the web for disliking the movie for things like it's poor special effects, utterly forgettable bad-guy, and flat humor.
These are all valid critisisms of the movie, but Sony and Paul Feige blew it all off.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 18, 2017, 08:20:20 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on July 18, 2017, 08:03:47 PM

Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 07:20:09 PM

Quote from: Guardian85Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.
A few things. In the movie itself, what was so "feminist" about it?

I'm so sure about the statement, "where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist." I remember all sorts of anti-women rants and I remember the makers talking about that. I remember thousands of comments saying something like, "I'm not watching it because it's an all female cast." that happened before the movie was even filmed, let alone edited, or even released. Is that valid criticism? Can you blame them for not wanting to take a dive through a pile of 99% anti-women shit to find the "valid" criticism to which to specifically address?

Again, most of the stuff is anti-women, misogynistic, and pro-male shit, that there being some for women doesn't seem like an issue. And the feminism stuff isn't even anti-men, it's for gender equality.
I remember thousands of commenters seeing the trailer and saying "I'm not paying to watch this, it looks awful". (And the ghosts in the movie did look like something out of Eddie Murphy's Haunted House")
I remember that too. I also remember thousands of more comments that were just against the main characters being women and that it ruining their childhood because of it.

Quote from: Guardian85I also remember Sony and Paul Feige coming right out and saying they were making a feminist movie.
I remember something about feminism, but do you have any direct quotes? I'm curious about the exact language of the proclamations.

Quote from: Guardian85People were lumped into the "misogynist hater" category all over the web for disliking the movie for things like it's poor special effects, utterly forgettable bad-guy, and flat humor.
Quote from: Guardian85These are all valid critisisms of the movie, but Sony and Paul Feige blew it all off.
I'm sure they did, but I don't blame them. There were thousands of bullshit criticisms A ton of them from people who admitted to not even watching the movie. Again, if you were faced with a pile of 99% shit, would you dig through it to find the few useful criticisms?

And here's what I don't get. Let's say that it's all true, that women have the audacity to want an equal amount of roles, that they're so devious that out of the many all male cast movies that hardly anyone has a problem with, that they force their way into an all woman cast movie. That there is a concerted effort to make more leading roles for women. What's the problem with it? Why does it bother you? There have been thousands of shit comedies and a bunch of shit reboots that didn't have all female casts, so if the GB reboot was feminist flop, why so much outrage against that just because of feminism?

My stance, is that it's not a big deal even if the feminist conspiracy theories are true. Let me know when or if it ever tips over the edge to where women have more opportunity, money, power... etc. than men.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 19, 2017, 07:36:17 AM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I might start worrying if/when women have more roles than men. But even then I'll be fine for a while. Women comprise about 29% of the main character and about 30% of the speaking characters.
So? Where is the problem? Even if they comprised 10% of all characters - or 97.3% - where is the problem? If the content is good, it's good, and personally, I struggle to think of entertainment content that was not made worse from forcing political agendas into it. Even when it does happen organically, the cringe factor still rises more often than not. Look at Bill Maher or John Oliver's shows for an example of that. Barely an episode goes by without some major cringe ruining some otherwise good content.

[Afterthought edit] Ever seen Evolution? It was a silly Sci-Fi comedy with David Duchovny. In any case, a massive "oh, for fuck's sake!" moment when said sci-fi tried to sell me fucking dandruff shampoo. It's kind of like that, only worse. In case of Evolution it was just some light-hearted silliness.

QuoteWhat I don't get, is why a bunch of men are having any problem at all when women start even just approaching an equal status. Like, what is the issue?
If forced, I define as anti-feminist. Even as such, I have no problem with women having an equal status to men.

What you are talking about here though, is hardly equal status, it's equal numbers across the tiers. Fine. Let's hire a lot more male fashion models... Oh, and get plenty of ugly ones too, from both sexes! Ugly people are so underrepresented! Also, we need to pay them better. Actually, fuck that. We'll just reduce the salaries of top female models and rejoice in our utopia where catwalks and covers of magazines are proportionately filled with fat guys with hairy shoulders and acne-scarred chics with mustaches.

QuoteI mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?
See above. Where some things have their place - others do not. If you make a character a woman to fill some bullshit quota, the best you can hope for is an uninspiringly flat character who drags the whole damned story down. If you write a story to fill some bullshit quota, you are likely to end up with a story that is flat and uninspiring and drags the whole industry down. See a pattern emerging? Bullshit quotas bad.

QuoteSo like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that.
As we have established, I do. If it does not happen organically, I would rather it did not happen at all.

QuoteI think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
True, and completely beside the point.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 19, 2017, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on July 19, 2017, 07:36:17 AM
Quote from: Davin on July 18, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
I might start worrying if/when women have more roles than men. But even then I'll be fine for a while. Women comprise about 29% of the main character and about 30% of the speaking characters.
So? Where is the problem? Even if they comprised 10% of all characters - or 97.3% - where is the problem? If the content is good, it's good, and personally, I struggle to think of entertainment content that was not made worse from forcing political agendas into it. Even when it does happen organically, the cringe factor still rises more often than not. Look at Bill Maher or John Oliver's shows for an example of that. Barely an episode goes by without some major cringe ruining some otherwise good content.

[Afterthought edit] Ever seen Evolution? It was a silly Sci-Fi comedy with David Duchovny. In any case, a massive "oh, for fuck's sake!" moment when said sci-fi tried to sell me fucking dandruff shampoo. It's kind of like that, only worse. In case of Evolution it was just some light-hearted silliness.
I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteWhat I don't get, is why a bunch of men are having any problem at all when women start even just approaching an equal status. Like, what is the issue?
If forced, I define as anti-feminist. Even as such, I have no problem with women having an equal status to men.
That is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?

Quote from: AsmodeanWhat you are talking about here though, is hardly equal status, it's equal numbers across the tiers. Fine. Let's hire a lot more male fashion models... Oh, and get plenty of ugly ones too, from both sexes! Ugly people are so underrepresented! Also, we need to pay them better. Actually, fuck that. We'll just reduce the salaries of top female models and rejoice in our utopia where catwalks and covers of magazines are proportionately filled with fat guys with hairy shoulders and acne-scarred chics with mustaches.
Why do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?
See above. Where some things have their place - others do not. If you make a character a woman to fill some bullshit quota, the best you can hope for is an uninspiringly flat character who drags the whole damned story down. If you write a story to fill some bullshit quota, you are likely to end up with a story that is flat and uninspiring and drags the whole industry down. See a pattern emerging? Bullshit quotas bad.
I don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteSo like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that.
As we have established, I do. If it does not happen organically, I would rather it did not happen at all.
None of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
True, and completely beside the point.
Actually, it seems to be the only point against women taking more roles.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Arturo on July 19, 2017, 06:13:45 PM
Well as some people have pointed out about more white people getting more awards than black people - there are more white people, therefore they would be more likely to get more awards. So there are are more women too. So shouldn't more women have more roles?
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Dave on July 19, 2017, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: Arturo on July 19, 2017, 06:13:45 PM
Well as some people have pointed out about more white people getting more awards than black people - there are more white people, therefore they would be more likely to get more awards. So there are are more women too. So shouldn't more women have more roles?

This is always a good point, Arturo. Sometimes "facts" are presented by the media and those with an agenda (sometimes hard to distinguish between) without reference to the overall picture or statistics.

More white kids than bkack will, say, graduate high school because there are more white kids than black in high school. "Out of one million of each, white and black kids,  x% of the former and y% of the latter will graduate high school," is more explicit and more correct but - sigh - betcha some dumbskull will not recognise it and still rant off about prejudice!
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Icarus on July 19, 2017, 11:33:28 PM
Sad to say that the graduation rate of black kids is considerably smaller than that for white kids when calculated on a percentage of enrollment basis.  Grade point average is also reflected in racial differences as are pregnancy rates for high school girls. Add in Juvenile delinquency rates too.   

Those statistics are not to imply that black kids are less capable of earning top grades, graduating on time and staying out of trouble.  There are some sociological implications. Generally speaking our white kids come from more educated parents who are also likely to be more financially secure.  That is a dilemma for we Americans who care about such things. And yes there are many of us who do care about such things. 

As a long time volunteer tutor I have worked with plenty of damned good kids of both races. Also some kids of both races who were not the least bit motivated.  It pains me that the kids with more pigmentation are so sparsely represented among the high achievers. Meanwhile our valedictorians have disproportionately Indian, or Asian names. 
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Dave on July 20, 2017, 05:59:12 AM
Quote from: Icarus on July 19, 2017, 11:33:28 PM
Sad to say that the graduation rate of black kids is considerably smaller than that for white kids when calculated on a percentage of enrollment basis.  Grade point average is also reflected in racial differences as are pregnancy rates for high school girls. Add in Juvenile delinquency rates too.   

Those statistics are not to imply that black kids are less capable of earning top grades, graduating on time and staying out of trouble.  There are some sociological implications. Generally speaking our white kids come from more educated parents who are also likely to be more financially secure.  That is a dilemma for we Americans who care about such things. And yes there are many of us who do care about such things. 

As a long time volunteer tutor I have worked with plenty of damned good kids of both races. Also some kids of both races who were not the least bit motivated.  It pains me that the kids with more pigmentation are so sparsely represented among the high achievers. Meanwhile our valedictorians have disproportionately Indian, or Asian names.
Asians in general and Jews seem to take education very seriously, I have often wondered why.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 20, 2017, 11:49:23 AM
I'm starting to have many points in several threads, which I want to address, and address well at that. *Sigh* I need a few more processor cores in my head.

Quote from: Davin on July 19, 2017, 03:13:51 PM
I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.
"Avoid if you don't like" is a game two can play. Mostly for the reason mentioned above though, not today.

QuoteThat is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?
There is a lot of more-or-less-semantic bullshit hidden behind the thin veneer of Merriam Webster in this short sentence and I think I will indulge myself to a tirade after briefly getting straight to the point. Dictionary definition works for the atheists because the lack of belief in gods is the only think which unites us all. The same would be true of the dictionary definition of feminist if, in fact, they were united by a desire for gender equality. Quite a number of them are practically and/or vocally against it, using the same dictionary's definition of equality. That is why it doesn't work. Now, my tirade won't write itself (if you pardon the pun from an intended response much later in this post... If ever I get there)

Yes, I'm sure there are feminists out there who are for gender equality. They are also more than likely a vast, yet relatively silent majority. What you put forth, however... It's kind of like saying that the SWJs are a part of the Progressive Left. Sure, they claim to be, but the respectable bits of what the Progressive Left was before their movement/subculture/whatever-it-is took off want nothing to do with them. Vocally and vehemently so. In this case, slapping a different label on them worked well enough. But sidetracked again. Feminism. There is no accurate label of which I'm aware for those "social media feminists," as I call them and while sensible people do distance themselves from those assholes, it is they who seem to dictate the ebb and flow of the entire movement.

So, if when you say "feminism" you are talking about the movement which secured women the right to vote across the civilized world and/or the movement which secured them equal rights under the law in much the same places (Mission accomplished there, by the way, and bloody well done at that) then you are pretty much speaking fondly of the well that was. Before it was poisoned by the rotting carcass of aggressive victimhood ideologues.

As fortune would have it, the sensible elements do seem to be on their way to hijacking their movement back. I'm sorry to say that I missed the trigger event, if there was such, but I think it started sometime last year. Perhaps the harpies just lost momentum... Or cannibalized each other, as they are prone to do.

An overly-long story short, in practice, this current wave of western feminism is not about equal gender rights. A lot of it is about sentimental bullshit issues, some is about fighting battles already won because... They weren't won well enough, I suppose. Some is about disadvantaging men and the rest... I'm pretty sure even its adherents would be hard-pressed to adequately and honestly define what they try to accomplish. There is not much room for promoting egalitarianism in all the bullshit.

So yes, I am all for people having equal starting conditions. And yes, I am for people having the same core rights. People. Not specifically men, or women, or dragonkin which, if the Internet is to be believed, is an actual thing these days. Fuuuck... And they apparently expect me to honor their bullshit identities. And that there is why if I am to wear a label with regard to feminism, I am against it.

Just don't put gender into shit - statistics will do the rest and... "Problem" solved. (Yes, I am being highly figurative after the dash)

/end tirade

QuoteWhy do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.
By all means. My irrelevant tangent defended its relevance in its very first sentence though. You are not promoting equal status in this discussion. You are promoting mathematical equality.

So, why are you then promoting crap like "we must get more women into films" and not crap like "we must get more men on the catwalks?"

And when you have addressed that question, why must we do that? Or, if you dislike my use of the word "must," what makes this course of action prudent? Are men who so desire not free to become fashion models? Are women who so desire not free to become actors? Most who try will probably end up selling burgers or some such, but that is not a part of the problem. If your choices result in failure, that's on you. There was a saying about either swimming with sharks or eating dogs... One or the other, or maybe even both, But I forgot.

QuoteI don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.
Is it lacking though, or is this a "citation needed" sort of argument?

QuoteNone of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.
I shall call this a "no honey's organic argument." Did any one coin that already? Because if not, I hereby declare it mine.

IKEA wallpaper does not draw itself. Great paintings often do. Do with my semantics what you will.

Quote
Actually, it seems to be the only point against women taking more roles.
A point against women taking more roles? I don't actually have one such. Maybe I should get one, yes? As someone being sold shit to?

Hmm... Ok... A probably-bullshit point which would indeed be a point against women taking more roles... I can spin that narrative... Gimme a minute.

*A better part of an hour later*

Ok. I know almost nothing about the natural acting abilities in primates, not to mention humans specifically. However, there are species of fish and birds and what have you where males do most of, if not all the acting. Humans being a sexually dimorphic species, does it not then stand to reason that the unequal representation on the silver screen is wholly or partly the result of human males just having a higher likelihood of being good at that particular craft?

Totally uninspired, I know, but that one is the sort of argument you mentioned. The argument I presented addresses a different issue, or at the very least a different angle of this one.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 20, 2017, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on July 20, 2017, 11:49:23 AM
Quote from: Davin on July 19, 2017, 03:13:51 PM
I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.
"Avoid if you don't like" is a game two can play. Mostly for the reason mentioned above though, not today.
I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteThat is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?
There is a lot of more-or-less-semantic bullshit hidden behind the thin veneer of Merriam Webster in this short sentence and I think I will indulge myself to a tirade[...]
I don't care.

Quote from: AsmodeanBefore it was poisoned by the rotting carcass of aggressive victimhood ideologues.
I am aware of some people taking it a bit too far, but there are actual victims.

Quote from: AsmodeanJust don't put gender into shit - statistics will do the rest and... "Problem" solved. (Yes, I am being highly figurative after the dash)
When an application has a bug, I address that bug directly and fix the code that resulted in that bug. This seems like a good strategy to me. So when society has a bug (one that weakens half of the population like gender inequality), I address the underlying things that result in that bug. You seem to be promoting the idea that ignoring the underlying causes will somehow fix everything.

And while I concede that the problem might fix itself on its own, I can only think of examples where people worked for change to make that change happen. Like the women's suffrage movement. They had to put gender into it because bias against their gender was the problem. How would you have gotten women the right to vote without putting gender into it?

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteWhy do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.
By all means. My irrelevant tangent defended its relevance in its very first sentence though. You are not promoting equal status in this discussion. You are promoting mathematical equality.
I am not, that you think I am is not coming from my words. Though I use numbers to show that there is a problem, I don't want people to go out and divvy everything up evenly. For instance: if the gap were within a 5% margin, I wouldn't think that there was much of a problem.

Quote from: AsmodeanSo, why are you then promoting crap like "we must get more women into films" and not crap like "we must get more men on the catwalks?"
This is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.

Why is it that whenever someone is working to fix women's inequality, a man asks "why are you fighting for women to be equal and don't fight for men to have even more things?" I don't know, because like that's the opposite? If men had significantly less things than women, I would be fighting for men's equality, but that's not the state of the world. I mean, I am fighting for men to be treated as equals because right now men are treated on average much better.

But that question still seems to point to the underlying problem. Are you and other anti-equality men actually unwilling to fight for equality until men are equal in the few remaining places where there are more women positions than men?

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.
Is it lacking though, or is this a "citation needed" sort of argument?
It's mostly a lack of evidence thing, but also, the supposed trail of cause to effect seems arbitrary and shows several red flags of confirmation bias. And I don't see how you could possibly show how all the casting the decisions came about. I mean, you might be able to find a few, but I doubt you'll find a significant enough sample. But I'm willing to consider it.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteNone of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.
I shall call this a "no honey's organic argument." Did any one coin that already? Because if not, I hereby declare it mine.

IKEA wallpaper does not draw itself. Great paintings often do. Do with my semantics what you will.
I don't agree with that. Artists struggle. Van Gogh  paintings did not paint themselves, he was a struggling artist who put a lot of work and thought into his work. Saying that great paintings often paint themselves is saying that the artist is hardly necessary at all. Are you saying that an artist doesn't need to practice, learn, and create, that a painting would just happen on its own?

Quote from: Asmodean[...]Ok. I know almost nothing about the natural acting abilities in primates, not to mention humans specifically. However, there are species of fish and birds and what have you where males do most of, if not all the acting. Humans being a sexually dimorphic species, does it not then stand to reason that the unequal representation on the silver screen is wholly or partly the result of human males just having a higher likelihood of being good at that particular craft?
Sure, "could" in the same sense that a god "could" exist.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 20, 2017, 05:37:06 PM
Quote
have no idea what you're getting at here.
In essence, that I could turn the tables on that argument, but decided against it because I'm posting not insignificant amounts of stuff while also having a pretty high work load.

QuoteI don't care.
Of course not. Which is part of the reason why I did choose to scratch that itch in my ranty place.

Still, you did choose to engage me, make a poor argument and to subsequently not care to counter or cede the point... Out of curiosity and with no malicious intent, I must ask; might you perchance actually identify with the SJW-movement?

QuoteI am aware of some people taking it a bit too far, but there are actual victims.
Yes, there most certainly are. What are they victims of, however? What do they think they are victims of? Many are justified. Most "professional victims" I am aware of, are not.

QuoteWhen an application has a bug, I address that bug directly and fix the code that resulted in that bug. This seems like a good strategy to me.
It is. Writing a whole new class, redefining your global variables and returning nulls from a void are not necessarily the prudent steps to take in that pursuit.

QuoteSo when society has a bug (one that weakens half of the population like gender inequality), I address the underlying things that result in that bug. You seem to be promoting the idea that ignoring the underlying causes will somehow fix everything.
No. Keeping true to your example, what I'm suggesting is using a single object class to define that, which you originally used multiple classes to define in order to eliminate the need for bug-causing object interactions.

QuoteAnd while I concede that the problem might fix itself on its own, I can only think of examples where people worked for change to make that change happen. Like the women's suffrage movement. They had to put gender into it because bias against their gender was the problem. How would you have gotten women the right to vote without putting gender into it?
How did men get the right to vote? Actually, that one suffers from the chicken and egg problem. What came first, the notion that voting was a fine idea to implement, or the meeting which decided eligibility? I suspect it has something to do with like... ancient Greece and/or Rome and citizenship and bottoms out at most modern societies having patriarchal roots... Sidetracked. Also, fascinated. I need some history books.

Thing is, you could have done it without bringing specifically gender into it. Campaign for voting rights for all people except whatever your clearly-defined restrictions may be.

QuoteI am not, that you think I am is not coming from my words. Though I use numbers to show that there is a problem, I don't want people to go out and divvy everything up evenly. For instance: if the gap were within a 5% margin, I wouldn't think that there was much of a problem.
...and yet 70/30 is a problem. Why? It's difficult to interpret what you just said as anything other than what I took it to be, by the way.

QuoteThis is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.
So more women in movies is of greater importance than more men on the catwalks? It is a subjective point, so subjectively, why is that?

As for my inane point, it does serve to illustrate something, does it not? You can put more effort and cover more ground with less resistance if you extend the group you advocate for to encompass more than who you consider to be marginalized.

QuoteWhy is it that whenever someone is working to fix women's inequality, a man asks "why are you fighting for women to be equal and don't fight for men to have even more things?"
Because comparing something with another non-issue is a fairly effective tool in demonstrating that it is, in fact a non-issue? Or maybe because some "problems" are actually a product of factors like fair competition, assumed identity and/or biological traits of the species? They are not all worth fixing.

QuoteI don't know, because like that's the opposite? If men had significantly less things than women, I would be fighting for men's equality, but that's not the state of the world. I mean, I am fighting for men to be treated as equals because right now men are treated on average much better.
This is not without merit, but again, I consider your focus to be misplaced. Shift it to people. Include men - perhaps even them dragonkin. Maybe you'll find that there is something in that, for which you fight for us too. Maybe you will even manage to sell someone like me some of that cool aid.

QuoteBut that question still seems to point to the underlying problem. Are you and other anti-equality men actually unwilling to fight for equality until men are equal in the few remaining places where there are more women positions than men?
Not at all. As I said, I used male models as a non-issue for comparison. I will try to make my case clearly and briefly and, as is well-established, neither comes naturally to me... Here we go.

I will fight for equal starting conditions for all people. I will also fight for a core of rights shared by everybody. I will not fight for equal privileges, nor will I accept any forced numerical equalizer meekly.

So, access to roughly the same education, roughly the same health care and roughly the same safety net for every human being within a society - yes. A right to life, property, safety, self-determination and a handful of others? Yes for the same group. The rest? Use your rights to earn that for yourself and/or those you deem worthy.

It's starved of nuance, but as I said, I attempted brevity and clarity.

QuoteIt's mostly a lack of evidence thing, but also, the supposed trail of cause to effect seems arbitrary and shows several red flags of confirmation bias. And I don't see how you could possibly show how all the casting the decisions came about. I mean, you might be able to find a few, but I doubt you'll find a significant enough sample. But I'm willing to consider it.
I will need to revisit this with my citation hat on then. Maybe also my much-treasured verbose clarification hat.

QuoteI don't agree with that. Artists struggle. Van Gogh  paintings did not paint themselves, he was a struggling artist who put a lot of work and thought into his work. Saying that great paintings often paint themselves is saying that the artist is hardly necessary at all. Are you saying that an artist doesn't need to practice, learn, and create, that a painting would just happen on its own?
Well, I did urge you to do with my semantics what you would.

A painting... A great painting is... A reflection. Bear with me, for I'm finding words for concepts I struggle with here. It is a reflection of self. Of an emotion. Of something I generally lump together as "sentimental human bullshit."

So when I say that great paintings often do paint themselves, I mean that while, or even before being painted, they exist in some form in the painter's mind. The canvas is an outlet for that, even when the end product is not what its creator expected it to become. That is the organic process I find crucial in considering something a piece of art. The opposing pole would be an artificial, for the lack of a better word, process, where rather than starting with some possibly vague sort of je-ne-sais-quoi, then expressing that, you start with "Right. Painting time."

I am not trying to diminish the work in either case, just viewing the process from a different angle. It's kind of like Lego blocks. You can use them to create that, which you see on the picture on the box they came in or... Just go with it.

Ok, I need a better example. I'm sort of an occasional poet. Most of my content is sort of gloomy, metaphor-ridden stuff for happy pill poppers. For me, an organic process of creating a poem would start with a state of mind or an idea and end with it being in some ways defined in my rhymes. An artificial process would be what I occasionally do when writing on demand here. I need a theme... Asmo special. Check. I need a topic. The relentless flow of time. Check. Now, I need words that rhyme. Check when finished. Sure, the product may still turn out to be art of sorts, but that requires a certain predisposition.

This isn't better at all, is it? Well, fuck. Still, it has become a different discussion, but... I like it. Do let us carry on if you or any one else is interested in picking it up.

Quote
Sure, "could" in the same sense that a god "could" exist.
Eh... As I said, I have no data on this. While disinclined to believe my probably-bullshit example, it's not completely without merit. Humans do tend to get laid more often through feats of good acting performance, and speaking from personal observation while being the only sober fuck at a drinking party, males are more likely to attempt getting laid that way.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 20, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on July 20, 2017, 05:37:06 PM
Quote
have no idea what you're getting at here.
In essence, that I could turn the tables on that argument, but decided against it because I'm posting not insignificant amounts of stuff while also having a pretty high work load.
I doubt you could turn the tables, at least not with anything substantial.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI don't care.
Of course not. Which is part of the reason why I did choose to scratch that itch in my ranty place.

Still, you did choose to engage me, make a poor argument and to subsequently not care to counter or cede the point...
I didn't see any point in all of that, so I don't care about it. I mean you call my argument poor, but I don't care about that either.

Quote from: AsmodeanOut of curiosity and with no malicious intent, I must ask; might you perchance actually identify with the SJW-movement?
I don't know what you mean by that, I thought that SJW was pejorative and not an actual movement that people identify with. I never cared enough to look beyond that. I'm not overly concerned with justice, I'm more concerned with a better functioning society.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI am aware of some people taking it a bit too far, but there are actual victims.
Yes, there most certainly are.[...]
Cool.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteWhen an application has a bug, I address that bug directly and fix the code that resulted in that bug. This seems like a good strategy to me.
It is. Writing a whole new class, redefining your global variables and returning nulls from a void are not necessarily the prudent steps to take in that pursuit.
Yes, it's a good thing I'm not trying to do that then.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteSo when society has a bug (one that weakens half of the population like gender inequality), I address the underlying things that result in that bug. You seem to be promoting the idea that ignoring the underlying causes will somehow fix everything.
No. Keeping true to your example, what I'm suggesting is using a single object class to define that, which you originally used multiple classes to define in order to eliminate the need for bug-causing object interactions.
Are you saying that in this instance, if you defined both men and women actors as just actors, that the gap between men and women roles would decrease? I mean, I'm for just calling them all actors and saying they are equal... but I don't think that will fix the actual bug. It would be like hiding a bug by simply not displaying it. Shitty programming, that.

User: "Hey, so we noticed that this algorithm is producing 70% blue and 30% red dots when it's supposed to be producing about an equal amount of blue and red dots. Did you fix that?"

Programmer: "Yeah, I fixed it by simply calling them all 'colors' now it produces 100% color dots."

User: "What the actual fuck?"

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteAnd while I concede that the problem might fix itself on its own, I can only think of examples where people worked for change to make that change happen. Like the women's suffrage movement. They had to put gender into it because bias against their gender was the problem. How would you have gotten women the right to vote without putting gender into it?
[...]Thing is, you could have done it without bringing specifically gender into it. Campaign for voting rights for all people except whatever your clearly-defined restrictions may be.
I wish things like that worked, but I've not seen examples of such.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI am not, that you think I am is not coming from my words. Though I use numbers to show that there is a problem, I don't want people to go out and divvy everything up evenly. For instance: if the gap were within a 5% margin, I wouldn't think that there was much of a problem.
...and yet 70/30 is a problem. Why? It's difficult to interpret what you just said as anything other than what I took it to be, by the way.
Where did I say that I'm arguing for equality by the numbers? I find that people often inject things I didn't say into what I said. Every time I ask what lead them to believe I said what they think I said, they either quote something where I didn't say it, or they ignore the request. I can't stop people from interpreting things incorrectly, but I'm not going to defend myself against things I didn't say.

BTW, just using numbers in a argument, doesn't mean that a person is arguing for things to be by the numbers.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteThis is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.
So more women in movies is of greater importance than more men on the catwalks? It is a subjective point, so subjectively, why is that?
You should read what I wrote and you'll see the answer to your inane questions. I was expecting this predictable turn and put the response into it:

This is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.

Quote from: AsmodeanAs for my inane point, it does serve to illustrate something, does it not? You can put more effort and cover more ground with less resistance if you extend the group you advocate for to encompass more than who you consider to be marginalized.
So in order to fight for women to have something closer to the equal amount of things as men have, we should also fight to get men more things?

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteWhy is it that whenever someone is working to fix women's inequality, a man asks "why are you fighting for women to be equal and don't fight for men to have even more things?"
Because comparing something with another non-issue is a fairly effective tool in demonstrating that it is, in fact a non-issue? Or maybe because some "problems" are actually a product of factors like fair competition, assumed identity and/or biological traits of the species? They are not all worth fixing.
That doesn't answer my question. When people argue for women to have equal things, why do men retort by asking why we don't fight for men to have even more things?

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI don't know, because like that's the opposite? If men had significantly less things than women, I would be fighting for men's equality, but that's not the state of the world. I mean, I am fighting for men to be treated as equals because right now men are treated on average much better.
This is not without merit, but again, I consider your focus to be misplaced. Shift it to people. Include men - perhaps even them dragonkin. Maybe you'll find that there is something in that, for which you fight for us too. Maybe you will even manage to sell someone like me some of that cool aid.
Cool aid? Has it become hostile now? I mean you could say that the point is meaningless, or even that you disagree, or even that the point is stupid... but to imply that my position is the result of some kind of brainwashing, that is more of an attack on me than my arguments, no? I reject the ad hominem and since there doesn't seem to be any more to your point than what has already been addressed, I'll simply leave it at that.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteBut that question still seems to point to the underlying problem. Are you and other anti-equality men actually unwilling to fight for equality until men are equal in the few remaining places where there are more women positions than men?
Not at all. As I said, I used male models as a non-issue for comparison. I will try to make my case clearly and briefly and, as is well-established, neither comes naturally to me... Here we go.

I will fight for equal starting conditions for all people. I will also fight for a core of rights shared by everybody. I will not fight for equal privileges, nor will I accept any forced numerical equalizer meekly.

So, access to roughly the same education, roughly the same health care and roughly the same safety net for every human being within a society - yes. A right to life, property, safety, self-determination and a handful of others? Yes for the same group. The rest? Use your rights to earn that for yourself and/or those you deem worthy.

It's starved of nuance, but as I said, I attempted brevity and clarity.
But you're literally arguing against woman working to get more roles in movies. This contradicts what you've just said.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI don't agree with that. Artists struggle. Van Gogh  paintings did not paint themselves, he was a struggling artist who put a lot of work and thought into his work. Saying that great paintings often paint themselves is saying that the artist is hardly necessary at all. Are you saying that an artist doesn't need to practice, learn, and create, that a painting would just happen on its own?
Well, I did urge you to do with my semantics what you would.[...]
Here is the thing I'm arguing against: that great works of art just happen organically. Organically colloquially meaning that little effort is put in place in the creation of such a work. Taking paintings into example, they took hours of work and a lot of painting over mistakes and erasing, and that's after many years of study and practice. And while a greatly skilled artist can make something seem effortless, there is a lot that goes into that.

So my original point is, things get forced all the time, I see that everything is forced. And while I agree that often, things get forced into breaking (I think that the last Independence Day could have been a pretty good movie if they edited it better), every work of art required intentional force to be created.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 21, 2017, 12:05:41 PM
QuoteI doubt you could turn the tables, at least not with anything substantial.
A challenge?

Well, obviously now I'm completely powerless to resist, so here I go:

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

"It" here being the ratio of men to women in film and television industry, the end. It's just as substantial as what you said. We are not talking about life necessities here.  ;)

Quote
I mean you call my argument poor, but I don't care about that either.
Yes, I also chose to explain why it was poor, but I believe this line of inquiry is out of gas, so unless you want to pick it up again, we might as well drop a quote from The Great Wall of Text.

QuoteI don't know what you mean by that, I thought that SJW was pejorative and not an actual movement that people identify with. I never cared enough to look beyond that. I'm not overly concerned with justice, I'm more concerned with a better functioning society.
I thought you didn't. For one, you do not have a problem talking to people holding opinions opposite to your own. For two, you don't seem to want any opinion silenced. You do tick a couple of other checkboxes though, but... At the end of the day, I probably tick off a fascist checkbox or two, and yet I certainly am not one.

Again, no insult was intended. While "SJW" may have started as a pejorative on par with "cuck" and what other alt-right-winger bullshit have you, it did sort-of stick to the movement. Personally, I do not use the acronym itself as a negative thing, but rather to distinguish the social justice control freak crowd from the progressive left, which they un-rightfully tend to claim to be a part of.

QuoteYes, it's a good thing I'm not trying to do that then.
Well... As you know by now, in my opinion, you are trying to fix the wrong problem - or a problem that isn't, if you will. Still, nothing new here either, so we can cut this one as well.

QuoteAre you saying that in this instance, if you defined both men and women actors as just actors, that the gap between men and women roles would decrease?
Nono, not at all. If you define male actors and female actors, and for that matter child actors of both sexes as actors, then if there is a gap, maybe discrimination has nothing to do with it? And if discrimination has nothing to do with it, problem. I. See. Not.

QuoteI mean, I'm for just calling them all actors and saying they are equal... but I don't think that will fix the actual bug. It would be like hiding a bug by simply not displaying it. Shitty programming, that.
Well... You have yet to make a case for it being an actual bug.

QuoteUser: "Hey, so we noticed that this algorithm is producing 70% blue and 30% red dots when it's supposed to be producing about an equal amount of blue and red dots. Did you fix that?"

Programmer: "Because given its model and input data, that is how this system behaves. I didn't make that. Ask your statistician."

Remember what we are talking about behind the programming example. Unexpected results do not equate buggy code - it may do its thing just fine, and yet its output may vary from the predictions of the hypothesis being tested. The prudent course of action then is to find out why that is, not nag the programmer about fixing your results for you. If it's a bug, well and good. If it's not? Adjust your hypothesis, make a better model, hire a different statistician... Et caetera.

QuoteI wish things like that worked, but I've not seen examples of such.
Prisons..?

QuoteWhere did I say that I'm arguing for equality by the numbers? I find that people often inject things I didn't say into what I said. Every time I ask what lead them to believe I said what they think I said, they either quote something where I didn't say it, or they ignore the request. I can't stop people from interpreting things incorrectly, but I'm not going to defend myself against things I didn't say.
Ah, yes! There it is! 8) Fine, I will rephrase.  ::)

Why is the bloody ratio of men to women in the film and TV industry a problem? Or, if you will, why ought it be made different from what it is?

QuoteBTW, just using numbers in a argument, doesn't mean that a person is arguing for things to be by the numbers.
Nope. It does not. But it's not the size of your non-sexual metaphor that's the issue, it's how you stick it into things. Do you, or do you not want the percentage of male-filled roles to go down and the percentage of female-filled roles to go up?

If you do, make. Your. Case. And in stead of addressing the semantics of your argument, I will be enabled to address the underlying issue.

QuoteSo in order to fight for women to have something closer to the equal amount of things as men have, we should also fight to get men more things?
Mmh... Yeah. Ok. It would not be an awful place to start, just somewhat lacking in nuance. I take issue with fighting for "having equal amount of things" but... I believe that's a case I have made. I may need to make a better one for not being an ideologue, but... We may get back to that.

QuoteThat doesn't answer my question. When people argue for women to have equal things, why do men retort by asking why we don't fight for men to have even more things?
Because you are trying to solve a problem that is not. And because their counter is to point out that you are doing just that.

Or maybe because they actually want those things? I could be a high salary fashion model...  :tellmemore:

QuoteCool aid? Has it become hostile now? I mean you could say that the point is meaningless, or even that you disagree, or even that the point is stupid... but to imply that my position is the result of some kind of brainwashing, that is more of an attack on me than my arguments, no? I reject the ad hominem and since there doesn't seem to be any more to your point than what has already been addressed, I'll simply leave it at that.
Ad hominem? I have not made a personal attack. Tumblr-feminist cool aid is poisoned. You are trying to push an agenda which walks and talks just like their. What I said was, filter your cool aid and I may buy some. If you perceive this as a personal attack, then I am in breach of rules and we can ask a moderator to weigh in.

QuoteBut you're literally arguing against woman working to get more roles in movies. This contradicts what you've just said.
Is that what I'm arguing about? Actors acting? If a role is written for a woman, then by a woman it should be filled. If a role is written for a man, it should be filled by a man.

If a poison-pushing producer, director or like... Fucking gaffer is a man, he be a cunt. If she's a woman, she be a cunt.

I don't give a shit what gender the person trying to forced-balance some perceived imbalance is, identifies as or aspires to be. What I do care about, is not fixing that, which is not broken. And if it is broken, make your case, and if it is compelling, then we'll talk. If not - not.

*Sigh* If you try to fix your world and influence that, which is not broken in mine in the process, you would be right to expect opposition, no? If you managed to sell me the notion that my world would be better off with your fix though... A different story, that. Yes?

Quote
Here is the thing I'm arguing against: that great works of art just happen organically. Organically colloquially meaning that little effort is put in place in the creation of such a work. Taking paintings into example, they took hours of work and a lot of painting over mistakes and erasing, and that's after many years of study and practice. And while a greatly skilled artist can make something seem effortless, there is a lot that goes into that.

So my original point is, things get forced all the time, I see that everything is forced. And while I agree that often, things get forced into breaking (I think that the last Independence Day could have been a pretty good movie if they edited it better), every work of art required intentional force to be created.
Good... Good.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Davin on July 21, 2017, 04:19:11 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on July 21, 2017, 12:05:41 PM
QuoteI doubt you could turn the tables, at least not with anything substantial.
A challenge?

Well, obviously now I'm completely powerless to resist, so here I go:

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

"It" here being the ratio of men to women in film and television industry, the end. It's just as substantial as what you said. We are not talking about life necessities here.  ;)
That doesn't make any sense in the context of what I said. I'm not complaining about the ratio, I accept it as something that is the result of what it is. I enjoy a lot of movies that have a higher men to women ratio. That doesn't mean that I don't think it should change. But I'm not going around making threads about how I hate how cringy it is that most roles in movies are men even though they only make up half the population.

Like I said, you couldn't "turn the tables" in any substantial way.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I mean you call my argument poor, but I don't care about that either.
Yes, I also chose to explain why it was poor, but I believe this line of inquiry is out of gas, so unless you want to pick it up again, we might as well drop a quote from The Great Wall of Text.
I must have missed it, all I saw were misrepresentations of what I said or things that had nothing to do with what I said. If you're going to go on a tangent to clarify something that I already understand, then I don't care. You can go ahead and do it, but I won't care.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteAre you saying that in this instance, if you defined both men and women actors as just actors, that the gap between men and women roles would decrease?
Nono, not at all. If you define male actors and female actors, and for that matter child actors of both sexes as actors, then if there is a gap, maybe discrimination has nothing to do with it? And if discrimination has nothing to do with it, problem. I. See. Not.
For one, I don't think you can agree to get everyone into your naming system, and I don't see how just obfuscating the issue means that there is no problem.

So what we're seeing is that 70% of the roles go men and 30% go to women. I understand if you don't think that shows a problem, but that is the problem I'm pointing to. Just hiding the disparity behind defining things differently doesn't remove the disparity.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI mean, I'm for just calling them all actors and saying they are equal... but I don't think that will fix the actual bug. It would be like hiding a bug by simply not displaying it. Shitty programming, that.
Well... You have yet to make a case for it being an actual bug.

QuoteUser: "Hey, so we noticed that this algorithm is producing 70% blue and 30% red dots when it's supposed to be producing about an equal amount of blue and red dots. Did you fix that?"

Programmer: "Because given its model and input data, that is how this system behaves. I didn't make that. Ask your statistician."

Remember what we are talking about behind the programming example. Unexpected results do not equate buggy code - it may do its thing just fine, and yet its output may vary from the predictions of the hypothesis being tested. The prudent course of action then is to find out why that is, not nag the programmer about fixing your results for you. If it's a bug, well and good. If it's not? Adjust your hypothesis, make a better model, hire a different statistician... Et caetera.
A bug is a system that is not working as designed. So what you're saying here is that the disparity is not a bug, it's the system working as designed.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteI wish things like that worked, but I've not seen examples of such.
Prisons..?
Potatoes...?

I have no idea what that random word response is supposed to mean. I seriously want to hear your argument to the voters in American at the start of the 20th century without mentioning gender.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteWhere did I say that I'm arguing for equality by the numbers? I find that people often inject things I didn't say into what I said. Every time I ask what lead them to believe I said what they think I said, they either quote something where I didn't say it, or they ignore the request. I can't stop people from interpreting things incorrectly, but I'm not going to defend myself against things I didn't say.
Ah, yes! There it is! 8) Fine, I will rephrase.  ::)

Why is the bloody ratio of men to women in the film and TV industry a problem? Or, if you will, why ought it be made different from what it is?
The amount of people reporting themselves as actors is roughly split around the 50% line. Or 56% men and 44% women according to https://www.bls.gov/ (I had to download the tables), for 2015. But the roles are still 70% men and 30% women. So about as many women want to be actors as men do, but the roles are not there for them. I think that disparity shows that there is a problem. If the amount of actors by gender more closely matched the roles, then I would concede that there might not be a problem.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteBTW, just using numbers in a argument, doesn't mean that a person is arguing for things to be by the numbers.
Nope. It does not. But it's not the size of your non-sexual metaphor that's the issue, it's how you stick it into things. Do you, or do you not want the percentage of male-filled roles to go down and the percentage of female-filled roles to go up?

If you do, make. Your. Case. And in stead of addressing the semantics of your argument, I will be enabled to address the underlying issue.
Well, if someone asks why I think there is something wrong with a persons health I have to point to things. If that person has a high white blood cell count, it indicates an infection. My pointing to the white blood cell count doesn't mean I'm arguing for blood cells by the number.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteThat doesn't answer my question. When people argue for women to have equal things, why do men retort by asking why we don't fight for men to have even more things?
Because you are trying to solve a problem that is not. And because their counter is to point out that you are doing just that.
I think it shows that they are not listening to what is being said.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteCool aid? Has it become hostile now? I mean you could say that the point is meaningless, or even that you disagree, or even that the point is stupid... but to imply that my position is the result of some kind of brainwashing, that is more of an attack on me than my arguments, no? I reject the ad hominem and since there doesn't seem to be any more to your point than what has already been addressed, I'll simply leave it at that.
Ad hominem? I have not made a personal attack. Tumblr-feminist cool aid is poisoned. You are trying to push an agenda which walks and talks just like their. What I said was, filter your cool aid and I may buy some. If you perceive this as a personal attack, then I am in breach of rules and we can ask a moderator to weigh in.
Cool aid is in reference to cult-like behavior and is a common dishonest debate tactic to lessen the points of ones opponent without actually addressing them. You are committing what walks and talks like an ad hominem.

Quote from: Asmodean
QuoteBut you're literally arguing against woman working to get more roles in movies. This contradicts what you've just said.
Is that what I'm arguing about? Actors acting? If a role is written for a woman, then by a woman it should be filled. If a role is written for a man, it should be filled by a man.

If a poison-pushing producer, director or like... Fucking gaffer is a man, he be a cunt. If she's a woman, she be a cunt.

I don't give a shit what gender the person trying to forced-balance some perceived imbalance is, identifies as or aspires to be. What I do care about, is not fixing that, which is not broken. And if it is broken, make your case, and if it is compelling, then we'll talk. If not - not.

*Sigh* If you try to fix your world and influence that, which is not broken in mine in the process, you would be right to expect opposition, no? If you managed to sell me the notion that my world would be better off with your fix though... A different story, that. Yes?
It's a perceived imbalance, because it is an imbalance. I get it, you don't like some of the movies where it doesn't work for you. But I think you're focusing on something that is not the problem (that it's the result of those evil feminists trying to force gender equality down your throat), and it just being a movie that doesn't suit your fancy. Which is why I brought up the other point, that there are several points of failure for a movie where a good movie can turn to shit and that even if those evil feminists were trying to make you see more women on screen, that is only a minor part of the success or failure of a film.

Quote from: Asmodean
Good... Good.
Which means, that when creating a film, things get forced. The process requires forcing things all the way through. From the pitch to the screen people are working and using force to push things through. A film doesn't get produced without people forcing it out.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 22, 2017, 12:44:01 PM
I will get back to this after the moderators have ruled upon my alleged transgression.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Tank on July 22, 2017, 01:01:43 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on July 22, 2017, 12:44:01 PM
I will get back to this after the moderators have ruled upon my alleged transgression.
Nobody has reported anything.
Title: Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
Post by: Asmodean on July 22, 2017, 01:07:17 PM
I reported myself. I can see the report too, but... Totally recused.  :-X